Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.
This reinforces Roger Antonsen's ;
Math is the hidden secret to understanding the world
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Clearly not, since your usage of that term is completely different to Dennett's usage.
No it is not.
Tell me where you believe I am interpreting Dennett incorrectly. Let's see how well you understand my mental machinations.
In traditional parlance, we seem to be attributing minds to the things we thus interpret, and this raises a host of questions about the conditions under which a thing can be truly said to have a mind, or to have beliefs, desires and other ‘mental’ states. According to intentional systems theory, these questions can best be answered by analyzing the logical presuppositions and methods of our attribution practices, when we adopt the intentional stance toward something. Anything that is usefully and voluminously predictable from the intentional stance is, by definition, an intentional system.
And here's you:
An intentional system is based on "sufficient" resources.
Biological tests of necessity and sufficiency refer to experimental methods and techniques that seek to test or provide evidence for specific kinds of causal relationships in biological systems. [etc. etc.]
When sufficient resources are present it makes it "necessary" for an effect to occur. It creates the existence of an unconscious intentional system, but that is where evolution (via natural selection) of adaptive specialization begins.
IMO, the microtubular network and its associated connective properties, such as synapses, make the MT network an "intentional system" from which conscious sentience emerges from necessity.
Note that nowhere does Dennett mention any idea of "sufficient biological resources" or causal relationships in biological systems, or microtubules, or unconscious intentional systems. Dennett's theory is all about what he calls "the intentional stance". Yours, such as it is, seems to be something vaguely about biological tests, asserting that - somehow- connections between microtubules make microtubules an "intentional system" - a term which you have yet to define, in the way that you're using it.
I don't believe you have understood what Dennett is talking about. I doubt you read his book. I suspect you've just quote-mined from the internet, as usual.
i.e. "usefully and voluminously" predictable from the intentional stance toward something.
And my closing argument;
Is Dennett's argument (that you selectively quoted from wiki) universally applicable?
If that is the case, your argument that he doesn't specifically mention microtubules or an unconscious neural network is moot, because it is included in the general proposition that any usefully and voluminously causal system may be considered an "intentional system", when viewed from that perspective.
Is any argument universally applicable?
Look, you and I both know that you don't understand Dennett's idea of "the intentional stance" well enough to be able to explain in your own words what it means. So, who do you think you're fooling here?
Some yes, in this universe.
And I used my own words to argue my perspective. Apparently, you did not quite understand the logic of the argument. Too obtuse for you?
You can't explain what Dennett means by "the intentional stance", can you?
But I asked you if you can explain what Dennett means, "in your own words". You have not yet answered that.
I would recommend you read this first and see the direct connection of this concept in relation to the function of the neural system and microtubules in particular.
The Intentional Stance
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Continued from above...
So the intentional stance works as follows:
I would add "necessity" to the list of "beliefs" and "desires".
I could do that, but it would be off-topic for this thread. Besides, I'm getting a bit bored by this latest irrelevant tangent. I think I'll probably dip out of this thread again and leave you to your normal blogging.
You just cannot make yourself say that my understanding of "intentional stance" is correct in context of "neural systems", can you ? Confirmation of my application of the term in more formal language is clearly spelled out .
Please do check the link to : https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2017/the-intentional-stance
Not until you show me that you understand it.
Look, forget it. I don't really care.
You have not in any way demonstrated that you understand it, so regardless of the confirming data from other sources I keep producing, you just keep insisting that I don't understand it, but that IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!
It is "ad homimem".
You seem to care enough to call me stupid without proof!
Is that your concept of a scientifically based dialogue?
Get over it. Move on.
I think this 133 page (!) train wreck is certainly proof.
I am trying, but you just keep trying to derail this thread with your ad hominem.
So far you have not debunked anything I have brought to the table. I have appreciated all your questions and made a good faith effort to answer them as far as my research has allowed me. But apparently you are not satisfied with "good" answers and just want something you can trash and make yourself feel superior. Is that some kind of psychological need?
Yes , because people like you just keep trying to derail the thread with useless and rude ad hominem.
Bring something constructive to the table or stay the hell out of my face.
You really don't quite understand how silly you sound trying to minimize the importance of a subject that is currently on top of the list of scientific inquiry, especially as it pertains to the development of AI. If you are a scientist, your fractured myopia is stunningly narrow in scope.
Nah, you're just obsessed with this.
Yes, and a magnificent obsession it is.
Unlike your juvenile obsession with making a point of being uncivil.
No. That's not what I am trying to do, nor is it something I have been trying to do.
Attempting to get ideas through to you seems like a hopeless pursuit. You always miss the point and go right on doing what you're doing, imagining that it is something worth spending lots of time on.
That is incorrect. I, among other people here, have put many of your more extravagant claims in perspective. It flies over your head, every time, without fail.
Your have, for the most part, failed to address the specific criticisms I have made of your position. In the process, I have demonstrated that, often, you do not even understand the meanings of the technical terms that you use. That ought to bother you, but it doesn't.
No. That's not it at all. I had hoped you would eventually come to an understanding of why your random cut-and-pastes of mostly-irrelevant material do not constitute "good answers". Now, I think you're probably a lost cause.
Nice try, but you're not the first to attempt that approach with me. I don't intend to take your bait.
The usefulness is there to be had, but I'm not sure whether you'll ever recognise it for what it is.
Clearly, you're upset. The truth can be hard to hear.
I will stop engaging with you, for the most part. That's what you say you want. Besides, I don't see much value in continuing to devote time to you. However, my ceasing to engage directly with you does not mean I will cease all engagement with what you post. Apart from anything else, I have some duties as a moderator. Apart from that, I don't like people being wrong on the internet, so I might still pop in to correct your "work" from time to time.
It's not on top of the list of scientific inquiry. You really ought to read more widely. There's tons of important and interesting science out there. Confining yourself to two or three fringe topics puts you in a self-imposed bubble where fantasies like the one you just constructed can become hard to shake off.
The record here clearly shows that my interests and capabilities extend beyond obsessing over the same two or three topics endlessly.
Separate names with a comma.